A couple of days ago I was approached by National Geographic.
They asked me whether they could use one of my images for promotional use on their website, worldwide and in perpetuity. According to standard industry rates (as supplied by photoshelter's pricing tool) the licence fee for this would be around $ 2000. What did they offer: $ 75 !!!!
I replied and asked them whether there was any flexibility in their pricing since I was trying to make a living out of this one day, to which I never got a reply.
I was wondering what your thoughts on this are. Do you feel that what they offer is typical, especially for a big publisher like them?
I once got a request from the Discovery Channel for multiple images to be used in a show. Their offer? $0.
So it's not the first time... But I'm sure others here who have had stuff published by NG could supply more accurate info about that organization's typical licensing practices.
This is not unusual - and it doesn't make it right. Think about the strategy of these companies. Apple has been known to do this. Send out thousands of requests - someone WILL give up their image "in perpetuity" just to get published, or thinking it will help make a name for themselves. National Geo is doing the same thing. Why pay $2000 when someone WILL give them a decent image for a mere $75.
It's also a matter of supply and demand. The market is flooded with beautiful pictures and there are tons of photographers producing them and trying to market them and make some money.
Even though I do not make my living from the sale of images, I long ago decided not to give my work away. Partly in support of those photogs who do make a living selling images. On the other hand, I also believe we can't stop the flood of quality images and by the rules of supply and demand, and flooded supply of imagery by definition means that prices will go down. What does that mean to the photographer who relies on photography to make a living, well, they have to adjust to the times, make their work more valuable, more unique and find ways to use photography to do other things besides just selling images (workshops, books, videos, all those things.)
In the end, lots of folks will sell their image to National Geo to add a notch to their bio and credit sheet, but I'd be hard pressed to say that they'll earn a living doing that.
Thanks for all your thoughts, guys! I would have expected more from a company like National Geographic. It didn't have to be $ 2000, I would have been happy with $ 400 or so. But their offer was quite an insult. Thanks for the suggestions, Lon. I realise too now that concentrating on selling images probably will not do the trick.
I think there are "good" business practices at work. Don't we all do the same when buying from an individual, whether a car, house or trinket? Offer them a low price, and if they take it we're proud. More likely they'll counter with a higher price. We don't take the first, lowest offer in negotiating sales anywhere else in life, so I can't bring myself to do it in business. If your counter to their lowball is refused, move on. If they nudge a little higher, continue the negotiation.
I may sound like I'm a sell out but I have gotten a very humble attitude that as long as they are paying me something to acknowledge my worth, I am not gouing to pass up a publishing gig from someone like Nat Geo. I too was recently approached by them to use my Gerbera Symphony image for an upcoming book. The thought of being published by National Geographic was so exciting to me. I asked about the money(expecting big bucks after all this is Nat Geo ) and was told it was a low budget book "is 200.00 okay?" I jumped on it and it is in the works as I bite my nails waiting to hear back :) . To be honest, I would have done it for 50 bucks. Don't we all dream of being picked up by Nat Geo? I don't feel I am quite there yet to start getting pushy and who knows what other publishings I could get from that one showing. I think $75.00 seem pretty low for that much usage, but I wouldn't pass it up myself till I had a few more under my belt. I say Go for it! You never know what could come from it.Best of luck
Posted by Ross Warner on June 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM
What are our photos worth? I would say what a buyer will pay and what we are willing to accept. It doesn't really matter what someone else received, in the past. Just because that Adams guy's photos are worth big dollars, I can't get near that for mine. Maybe that National Geographic is not such an upstanding publication.
I did not refuse the offer, I just asked whether there was flexibility in their pricing, to which I got no response - I am assuming they just went to someone else.
As far as exposure is concerned, the images they post on the website only have one's name for credit. No link to or mention of one's website or anything like that. I am assuming that a very small fraction of viewers will actually go to the trouble to search for the website. I also noticed that the images that they used for other items were not particularly high quality - I guess they are just gunning for the cheap nowadays.
In summary, I felt their offer was insulting, especially for a publication that surely is aware of the plight of photographer's trying to make a living. How many thousands do they pay their photographers to go on assignment, and all they can offer is $ 75?
Thank you very much for your interest in using my image for your website. I am thrilled at the prospect of one of my images forming part of the National Geographic website.
Lesley, I am a semi-professional photographer and my intention is to go professional as soon as possible. In view of this, I like to charge industry standard rates for the use of my images. From the license terms you sent me, the image is to be used on the internet for promotional purposes, worldwide, and in perpetuity. The standard industry rate for such use is around $ 2300 (according to photoshelter's pricing features). This would however always be negotiable on my side, since the budget of the interested party may not allow for such expenses. Could you please let me know whether there is some flexibility in the rates that National Geographic offers to pay for use of images on its website?
How many thousands do they pay their photographers to go on assignment, and all they can offer is $ 75?
Those are two different worlds in our experience.
Stock photos of common subjects and events are almost literally a dime a dozen in today's market because there is always someone willing to sell them for next to nothing, or to give them away free for "recognition," whatever that is.
But when the photos don't already exist and are extremely difficult to get, you learn what photographs are really worth, and what users are willing to pay for them. Our base rate for contract shooting is over $1500 a day for a single photographer and basic gear and goes up as our services increase. Expenses and license fees for the resulting photos are additional. We spend almost zero effort marketing stock, and almost all our stock sales come as a part of a shooting contract and are needed to help fill out a client's project.
I recently was fortunate enough to run into a disgraced politician in the aisles of the grocery store hours after he quit. I took some horrible quality images with my iphone and sold them to the NY Post for $750 (a price I pulled out of thin air). That was just for the exclusive use of the photos - not the rights. They called the next day asking for the full rights to the image because others wanted to buy it from there and I sold those for another $800. And guess what, the next day the story was out of the papers and off the web and the photos are useless, but I made some quick cash.
Why? Supply and Demand. I was the only one who had photos of this guy and his wife after he quit - so they had to pay what I asked or forgo the story which quickly made national news. But with Nat Geo, they could use hundreds if not thousands of different images for that purpose and it would look just as good - so why pay the big bucks when you don't have to? If they needed a photo of say a lion chasing a gazelle - then they would have to pay more because the number of photographers who have that shot is few and far between. Hope that makes sense.
It makes perfect sense and means that many photographers no longer can make a living - all to save a few measly bucks. What is $ 400 to Nat Geo? Nothing.
Christoph, $400 might be nothing once, but for a company that deals primarily in images.. I imagine it adds up very, very quickly. So saving a few bucks on each image actually may make a huge difference in the end.
This has been a very interesting read. From the responses above it appears that prices have come down (which I can understand given the increased supply these days). So why is Photoshelter continuing to specify $2000+ as the industry standard price?
That's a good question, Anil. Perhaps it is a naive attempt to get the industry to keep the prices artificially high.. if it is, clearly it's not working!
In our experience there is not, and frankly never has been a "standard." Price has always been highly variable depending on the publication, the "user group" they serve, their budget, and especially the uniqueness of the photo. Prices for photos of common subjects have always been lower than the less common. Some magazines just operate on a thinner budget than others in spite of their size and once upon a time their photos clearly showed they paid less. Spin all that in a blender and pour into a glass, and you have a negotiation smoothie. That's been the value for us in fotoQuote. It's results are not a "standard," rather they're a range of prices for any specified use, along with key points you can use in your negotiations. Reality for the real world.
Do they include all the negotiating functions? That's the real power, not the numbers. I go right to the source. FotoQuote makes us a lot of money each year. Most recently I "estimated" what a license fee should be worth because I was on one of our computers without it. Thank goodness my wife pulled (yanked!) me up short from making a quote, and suggested we'd get back to the client later after we had consulted our records. I had guessed between $400 and $500 for the use. But fotoquote suggested a range of $1200-$2500. I developed a quote based on those numbers and their negotiating points. My quote was near the top of that range, but the client choked. I proceeded to explain how the price was derived and he countered with an offer of $1200. I countered, and ultimately we settled at a little over $1500. If I had used my guestimated #'s, I'm sure he would have come back at $200 and we'd have settled around $300. Doh!!!!!!
Well, after all, I accepted the $ 75 and am looking forward to seeing my pic on their website. I was told there was no room in the budget for more than $ 75, so I will go with that. Perhaps more opportunities will arise out of this.
It sure sounds like that was the only possible outcome, Christoph, so it certainly appears you did all you could.
I wouldn't let it discourage you though! Prices are as variable as clients and projects, and the next one could pay well. It's a bit of a scramble to build a pro career, but over time it can be done.
I'll repeat our insight about markets- Those close to home very often pay more than the "big" ones like NG that garner all the glory laurels with your fellow photographers. You need to build the local visibility and rep, but that comes fast compared to doing so nationally. And best for development of a career, the contract shooting ops will come along with that local visibility.
Need a pic? Who ya gonna call? "Hey, that Christoph Fisher sure seems to take good pics, and everyone else in town seems happy with him." Spoken at a weekly meeting of your local Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce. No, it's not "art" photography, but in our case we saw no moral purity in becoming starving artists. We continue our art photography on the side of our regular jobs, just like most other folks. We just happen to use the same equipment for both.
There are always takers for these $75 offers - it depends on how you value it. For the big publisher, it is just a cost reduction method. For photographers, it's either a marketing oppty or "get-anything" attitude - that's why photography has become one of the toughest profession to make money. But for all the starving photogs, there is always a Peter Lik for example
Thanks for the advice Hank. Arnab, I know what you are talking about. That guy sure knows how to promote himself - but then again that is what all businesses do. So for that I will give him kudos, and thats about it.:-)
Good insight Christoph. I'll add one more form of promotion, and it's more powerful I think- word of mouth from happy clients.
That is very likely to foundation of our growth and success in local markets, even as the national markets tank. NG isn't likely to call up Smithsonian to brag about your work, but the sporting goods store owner down the street is very likely to brag about you at the Rotary and Chamber of Commerce meetings. We budget 5% of our gross for advertising, but that's entirely devoted to our studio traffic. My wife's in charge of all the senior pics, family pics and weddings accounting for roughly half our income, and she's in charge of the advertising too. All other aspects of our business have relied on and grown through "client promotions."
Discussion
29 repliesA couple of days ago I was approached by National Geographic.
They asked me whether they could use one of my images for promotional use on their website, worldwide and in perpetuity. According to standard industry rates (as supplied by photoshelter's pricing tool) the licence fee for this would be around $ 2000. What did they offer: $ 75 !!!!
I replied and asked them whether there was any flexibility in their pricing since I was trying to make a living out of this one day, to which I never got a reply.
I was wondering what your thoughts on this are. Do you feel that what they offer is typical, especially for a big publisher like them?
Thanks,
Christoph
So it's not the first time...
Max
The truth is, they'll probably find someone else who will license their image for $75.
This is not unusual - and it doesn't make it right. Think about the strategy of these companies. Apple has been known to do this. Send out thousands of requests - someone WILL give up their image "in perpetuity" just to get published, or thinking it will help make a name for themselves. National Geo is doing the same thing. Why pay $2000 when someone WILL give them a decent image for a mere $75.
It's also a matter of supply and demand. The market is flooded with beautiful pictures and there are tons of photographers producing them and trying to market them and make some money.
Even though I do not make my living from the sale of images, I long ago decided not to give my work away. Partly in support of those photogs who do make a living selling images. On the other hand, I also believe we can't stop the flood of quality images and by the rules of supply and demand, and flooded supply of imagery by definition means that prices will go down. What does that mean to the photographer who relies on photography to make a living, well, they have to adjust to the times, make their work more valuable, more unique and find ways to use photography to do other things besides just selling images (workshops, books, videos, all those things.)
In the end, lots of folks will sell their image to National Geo to add a notch to their bio and credit sheet, but I'd be hard pressed to say that they'll earn a living doing that.
Just my .02.
Lon
Cheers,
Christoph
Bill Brennan
I did not refuse the offer, I just asked whether there was flexibility in their pricing, to which I got no response - I am assuming they just went to someone else.
As far as exposure is concerned, the images they post on the website only have one's name for credit. No link to or mention of one's website or anything like that. I am assuming that a very small fraction of viewers will actually go to the trouble to search for the website. I also noticed that the images that they used for other items were not particularly high quality - I guess they are just gunning for the cheap nowadays.
In summary, I felt their offer was insulting, especially for a publication that surely is aware of the plight of photographer's trying to make a living. How many thousands do they pay their photographers to go on assignment, and all they can offer is $ 75?
Cheers,
Christoph
Thank you very much for your interest in using my image for your website. I am thrilled at the prospect of one of my images forming part of the National Geographic website.
Lesley, I am a semi-professional photographer and my intention is to go professional as soon as possible. In view of this, I like to charge industry standard rates for the use of my images. From the license terms you sent me, the image is to be used on the internet for promotional purposes, worldwide, and in perpetuity. The standard industry rate for such use is around $ 2300 (according to photoshelter's pricing features). This would however always be negotiable on my side, since the budget of the interested party may not allow for such expenses. Could you please let me know whether there is some flexibility in the rates that National Geographic offers to pay for use of images on its website?
Thank you very much for your time and help.
Best regards,
Christoph
Those are two different worlds in our experience.
Stock photos of common subjects and events are almost literally a dime a dozen in today's market because there is always someone willing to sell them for next to nothing, or to give them away free for "recognition," whatever that is.
But when the photos don't already exist and are extremely difficult to get, you learn what photographs are really worth, and what users are willing to pay for them. Our base rate for contract shooting is over $1500 a day for a single photographer and basic gear and goes up as our services increase. Expenses and license fees for the resulting photos are additional. We spend almost zero effort marketing stock, and almost all our stock sales come as a part of a shooting contract and are needed to help fill out a client's project.
Why? Supply and Demand. I was the only one who had photos of this guy and his wife after he quit - so they had to pay what I asked or forgo the story which quickly made national news. But with Nat Geo, they could use hundreds if not thousands of different images for that purpose and it would look just as good - so why pay the big bucks when you don't have to? If they needed a photo of say a lion chasing a gazelle - then they would have to pay more because the number of photographers who have that shot is few and far between. Hope that makes sense.
- Luke
It makes perfect sense and means that many photographers no longer can make a living - all to save a few measly bucks. What is $ 400 to Nat Geo? Nothing.
Christoph
That says a lot about how often they update, I think. We use fotoQuote. End of story.
> That says a lot about how often they update, I think. We use fotoQuote. End of story. <
Hank: PhotoShelter uses fotoQuote as well, and allows the photographer to modify those rates as they see fit.
Well, after all, I accepted the $ 75 and am looking forward to seeing my pic on their website. I was told there was no room in the budget for more than $ 75, so I will go with that. Perhaps more opportunities will arise out of this.
It certainly has been a good reality check!
Cheers,
Christoph
I wouldn't let it discourage you though! Prices are as variable as clients and projects, and the next one could pay well. It's a bit of a scramble to build a pro career, but over time it can be done.
I'll repeat our insight about markets- Those close to home very often pay more than the "big" ones like NG that garner all the glory laurels with your fellow photographers. You need to build the local visibility and rep, but that comes fast compared to doing so nationally. And best for development of a career, the contract shooting ops will come along with that local visibility.
Need a pic? Who ya gonna call? "Hey, that Christoph Fisher sure seems to take good pics, and everyone else in town seems happy with him." Spoken at a weekly meeting of your local Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce. No, it's not "art" photography, but in our case we saw no moral purity in becoming starving artists. We continue our art photography on the side of our regular jobs, just like most other folks. We just happen to use the same equipment for both.
That is very likely to foundation of our growth and success in local markets, even as the national markets tank. NG isn't likely to call up Smithsonian to brag about your work, but the sporting goods store owner down the street is very likely to brag about you at the Rotary and Chamber of Commerce meetings. We budget 5% of our gross for advertising, but that's entirely devoted to our studio traffic. My wife's in charge of all the senior pics, family pics and weddings accounting for roughly half our income, and she's in charge of the advertising too. All other aspects of our business have relied on and grown through "client promotions."